Saying the quiet part out loud
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (57)
sorted by:
That's not true. Because a prerequisite of that supermajority is a unanimous jury that the crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 unanimous jury + 1 supermajority > just 1 unanimous jury
That is an impossible standard.
It's not math. They don't add together. It's the same evaluation of guilt, different question of what punishment is warranted.
For example, three people who are convinced of guilt with possibility of future exoneration and nine people who are absolutely convinced. The three may vote guilty, but would not vote to execute. If they vote guilty then they've effectively voted for execution under a supermajority scheme.
They'd have to game-theory vote not-guilty even despite believing in the guilt in order to not vote for execution, lowering their evaluation of guilt to less than it should be because of a standard for execution that is lower than of guilt.
"Impossible" is not a mathematical impossibility. In law there's often the implicit "if you're not a moron or an aspie".
These people should not vote guilty, even in the current system. If they do, then they are not convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sure, but they know that. Which only adds to my previous statement that they shouldn't vote guilty if they aren't sure he's guilty. Voting guilty relying on future exoneration if further evidence comes out is not how juries should work. Hopefully this law forces jurors deciding innocent or guilty to vote more appropriately, knowing that there may not be a possibility of future exoneration.
Let's think about this. I described a scenario where jurors were sure the defendant was guilty, but also thought new evidence could change their mind.
And your response is then "they are not convinced of guilt".
This scenario proves your views wrong so you deny that it could even be possible, though you can search "exonerated new evidence" and find hundreds of such cases in reality.
Maybe it would be useful to you to lay out what your minimum standard of evidence would be to convict, come up with new evidence that would change your mind, then imagine different facts where that evidence wouldn't change your mind. You discount that's possible, but do this exercise yourself with your own standard of proof and see that it is.
Then that is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so those jurors should not be voting guilty.
I didn't deny that. Jurors vote poorly all of the time. But they also aren't currently told explicitly to not convict unless they are positive that no new evidence could come out that would overturn the conviction.
Yes, and those juries all fucked up by voting guilty when they weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are also examples of people who were sentenced to the death penalty by a unanimous jury who were later found out to be not guilty with new evidence. It happens.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Simple. The exact same standard I would apply to a death penalty sentencing.
That's my point here. Perhaps the disconnect is that I hold a higher standard for sentencing than you do. In my mind, the second jury for sentencing death penalty is completely superfluous.